Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Why We Should Flag the Flag Debate.

Even the capital of that nation which launched the war on drugs, Washington DC, legalised cannabis this week, following whole US states that have done so over the last eighteen months, with some states having had available medicinal cannabis for many years, as they have had assisted suicide. For all its faults the US understands freedom better than our legislature; New Zealand is still closer in time to the Maori Wars than being able to hold such grown-up discussions. Instead we get to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money, will lose countless tedious media hours, to discuss a flag that won't be seen other than rarely on the podiums of minor-world sports events.

Here's what we do with the trifling thing that is the flag debate: nothing. Don't get involved. Don’t partake. Don’t give it the dignity of any type of rational discourse. Ignore every aspect of it and venue it is taken to; show it the contempt it deserves, compared to issues of living our lives, and for many of us, dying sometimes cruel deaths.

This will be the only time ‘flag’ is mentioned in this blog. To the Prime Minster, with no respect, you arse … and just over one year ago you promised at least some type of assisted dying legislation: live by your word.


You'll have noticed over the last twelve months that my use of foul language in posts such as this has become, sadly, more commonplace. The keywords to understanding this are:



The majoritarian politics we have succumbed to in our social democracy is too often growing into inhumane bullshit. I am an individual; give me my rights back.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

ACT’s Duplicitous War on Classical Liberals | ACT the Conservative Party in Parliament.

Let me change the narrative again. Euthanasia is not an 'extreme libertarian' position, we know this because the member who almost brought in euthanasia legislation via the ballot was a Labour Party MP. What is the extreme position in this debate is the inhumane notion that we must die in sometimes excruciating, undignified circumstances because a fairy tale, angry God deems that as our lot and it's the ticket  price of that Never Never Land called Heaven, a notion every bit as insane and extreme as the 40 virgins bullshit. Yet 120 children masquerading as adults in the sandpit at Wellington seem to believe in just that, including the faux great classical liberal hope, David Seymour. 

ACT held its conference this weekend, and confirmed their status as National’s toadying conservative partner, and the enemy of the libertarian, and thus classical liberal, vote. 

My comment to Lindsay Mitchell’s broadly supportive post on ACT’s policy position, sums up where I’ve been heading since my earlier post against David Seymour’s double-cross of the libertarian vote via not endorsing a position for euthanasia on either a party or personal level:

Afraid for at least a decade I can't stand pragmatism and the 'game' of politics.

Conservatives, which Seymour most definitely is, are not classical liberals: they believe in the small state economically, but the big moral state in your face and life, often in personal issues that are bigger, for me, than the economic state (though all are linked).

I understand David Farrar spoke 'for' euthanasia at the ACT conference; Seymour, however, remains, as ever, silent, and the issue was side-lined. ACT is a (social) conservative party.

I am now a single issue voter. I see no more important right than ownership of my body, thus euthanasia, because that has to be the foundation of all rights for a classical liberal party: the individual. I will vote for any party, including Green Party, that promises euthanasia legislation for their three year term. I will totally prostitute my vote for that single issue (and related issues such as legalisation of cannabis proper, and especially medicinal cannabis).

That won't be any party with Seymour pulling the strings.

Worse, Seymour’s following statement is where pragmatism and doublespeak becomes the ruling politick, punching the face of liberty forever:

Our tribe is the standard-bearer for classical liberalism in NZ, representing a general orientation towards a defence of private property, freedom of contract and limited government.

This is by no means an extreme or pure libertarian position. Classical liberalism takes a larger and more realistic view of government.

Classical liberals believe in individualism, not ‘tribes’, David. Tribes are cleaved to by Marxist identity politickers and collectivists of all hues… remember?

And your statement against the ‘extremism of libertarianism’ is the Left’s infantile misconception of what libertarianism even is: libertarianism is in fact, via individualism and from that minarchism, synonymous with classical liberalism. Your statement is the final double cross to classical liberalism, and one swift, vulgar kick into the gonads of former ACT leader Jamie Whyte, who was ACT’s only glimmer of hope. What a shame he didn’t stand in Epsom, although, noting your premier positioning out of the conference is for a referendum on superannuation, hopefully looking to at least  means test it again, admirable in itself, but given that is the voting base you appear to be looking for, retired God-fearing oldies, strategy is not one of ACT’s strengths.

For me, any party putting euthanasia legislation down as priority policy, including their non-negotiable policy plank in coalition negotiations, gets my vote for the next general election. In the absence of any party offering this basic right, then they have my wrath, and I’m throwing my vote away on the landfill of this immoral majoritainism forced on us by social democracy. A pox on it and its petty partisan politics; its tribes that vote out of mindless subservience to the body politick, not, as a classical liberal party would, issue by issue, voting for individual volition and the dilution of the state, regardless the consensus or an MP's career prospects.

David, in neither committing your party, or worse, even yourself, to any socially liberal cause, such as euthanasia, you can go to hell, which, as you’ve buckled so readily to the God-Squad majority in ACT, you no doubt believe in. My wish for your abomination of a party is electoral oblivion, so we can clear the slate and get an actual classical liberal party from the ashes.

And finally a footnote. Let me change the narrative again. Euthanasia is not an 'extreme libertarian' position, we know this because the member who almost brought in euthanasia legislation via the ballot was a Labour Party MP. What is the extreme position in this debate is the inhumane notion that we must die in sometimes excruciating, undignified circumstances because a fairy tale God deems that as our lot and it's the price of Heaven, a notion every bit as insane and extreme as the 40 virgins bullshit. Yet 120 children masquerading as adults in the sandpit at Wellington seem to believe in just that, including the faux great classical liberal hope, David Seymour.

Update 1:

This letter to Lindsay’s thread makes a fine point backing up my own:

Anonymous said...

But I can no longer be bothered getting emotionally het up about people who take a different perpsective to mine. Unless, of course, they are socialists.

Ok. So far so good. But then Seymour says:

In short, we all know that government must respond to problems of pollution, the creation of infrastructure, of monopoly power, and raise funds through taxation

In short: ACT is socialist.

Can’t dispute that either.

ACT, National, ACT, National, ACT, National … can you see the difference? I can’t. There might be some minor differences of degree between the two, but there are no differences in principle.


Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Individualism, Euthanasia, Car Crashes & Purpose of Parliament | The Actual Social Contract

From the euthanasia debate that has been stirred by my last post, which, note, was an attack on every sitting MP in parliament and ACT’s David Seymour, and then from Peter Cresswell’s appreciated efforts here and here, a couple of important points I have made in comments that I would like to highlight here.

First, from my post:

… regarding the euthanasia debate, you [christian commenter] have no right to have your opinion heard because it is VOLUNTARY. That is, you, like my father presently, are free to live in your pain, [when your time comes], thinking it's going to buy you a place in heaven or some such rot. But you don't get to decide for those of us who want euthanasia, that we can't have it.

That point again, expanded, from the NotPC thread:

… all libertarians should accept that those [faux libertarians / Christians] who don't believe in euthanasia have no right to have their voices heard, because it's voluntary: no one is forcing you, and so no libertarian would seek to not allow such law for those who want it.

Again, the social contract is NOT the damned tax state based on the tax take forced on us by statists, Left and Right, it's that society where I accept religious freedom, et al, for people to believe in the big tree frog for all I care, and the religious accept policies anathema to them, such as euthanasia, abortion, drug legalisation, et al. The binding principle is non-initiation of force and do no harm.

Finally, also from a NotPC thread:

… And again *for me* forget all the politics. I don't see many issues more important than euthanasia. If you're dying in appalling circumstances, there is nothing more important, and you don't have time for political niceties. At any one time there will certainly be tens, if not hundreds, in such a position - including the feisty old lady, cancer sufferer, featured on Seven Sharp last night, who was indignant she not be able to end her life peacefully. (I recommend going to watch that piece on demand : TV 1, Seven Sharp, February 16).

Or as I was trying to explain to the Christian in comments of my original post, who was trying to argue euthanasia as being narcissistic (FFS), I view politicians who can read or view the plight of people in such a dire position - again Faye Clark in my original piece - then do nothing about it, akin to someone who doesn't stop when first on the scene of a car accident, to provide, if nothing else, comfort.

What the hell is parliament for if not the lot of individuals? I have no time for political game playing and this dreadful pragmatism all the partisans are advocating for ACT, in ACT or any party. Politics is shit, frankly. Especially partisan, party based politics. A pox on it.

Anyway, back to work for me. But nice if Seymour might actually state his personal beliefs without having to focus group them first  ...

Related Posts: